You seem to not have a grasp of how this natural rights thing became adopted as the standard upon which this nation was founded.
You didn't grasp it when we argued about "Natural Born Citizen", and you aren't grasping it now either.
"Natural Law", was a body of philosophy which became dominant around the early 18th century. It began as a collection of ideas and logical arguments about the nature of man and his relationship with the State. Here is the short version.
Locke is known as one of the most significant English origin proponents of "natural law", but Samuel Rutherford and others also contributed to this body of thought.
In any case, you are alleging "conditions" and "procedures" when in fact the only salient one was the decision to adopt a form of government based on the premises of natural law.
We can hardly oblige a government to adhere to a body of thought before that government existed.
A “Natural Right” that requires the infrastructure of a government isn’t natural at all. A natural right belongs to every person, regardless of the imprimatur of some superseding body to invoke it. This goes back to your insistence that only the governments within arbitrary lines drawn on a map by men can exercise these rights, which makes a mockery of these supposedly “natural rights.”